Yanks acquire Nady, Marte from Bucs for 4 prospects .

[ORS]

Context matters. Look at what had just happened. Drew hasn't made his mind up yet, so he says he's happy in LA. Happy, not committed to staying. Colletti thinks there's a good chance his player is staying. Drew opts out, Colletti is miffed. It's kind of funny what people will do and say when they are miffed. I could have sworn the public figure for Yankee ownership said something of substance about ARod playing on the Yankees right after ARod opted out when he was miffed. How did that play out?

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Context matters. Look at what had just happened. Drew hasn't made his mind up yet' date=' so he says he's happy in LA. Happy, not committed to staying. Colletti thinks there's a good chance his player is staying. Drew opts out, Colletti is miffed. It's kind of funny what people will do and say when they are miffed. I could have sworn the public figure for Yankee ownership said something of substance about ARod playing on the Yankees right after ARod opted out when he was miffed. How did that play out?[/quote']

 

If Colletti is miffed, that's fine. But to basically say that you are looking into tampering charges, just because you lost out on a free agent? I think that's a stretch for anyone except Hank.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Conjecture.

 

Of course it is. So is almost the entire argument between Gom and JHB.

[rician blast]

I disagree. I think Colletti's quotes on the subject are very telling. Why wouldn't Colletti flatly deny the tampering claims (like Boras and Epstein) if he didn't think it was at least a possiblity?

 

“We haven’t reached a decision yet,”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/sports/baseball/08chass.html?_r=2&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/M/Matsuzaka,%20Daisuke&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

"We've looked into it," Colletti said, "but beyond that, I don't have anything to say at this point."

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/12/09/door_on_gagne_is_closed

 

To me those quotes say that there is more to this than a just a sportswriter's personal vendetta.

 

I'd argue that those quotes could mean "we HAVE to look into it...but we ain't found s***"

or even "what a f***ing waste of our time, all generated by some pompous NYT writer with a vendetta"

[Gom]

I can't believe how far you continue to epically miss the point people are making. It's bizarre. He hasn't said you won't find other references to tampering on the internet. In today's age' date=' that would be impossible. His point, and if you follow the hyperlink trail you'll see he's right, is that all the blogs, forum posts, etc, all of it, tracks back to the Chass article. The source of all the crap you find on the internet is singular. The Chass article fizzled out quickly (and I might add, Chass has been let go by the NYT). Lots of smoke, little chance of fire.[/quote']

I get it. Chass broke the article. Being responsible writers they gave him credit.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2006/12/charges_on_the.html

http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2006/12/08/Red_Sox_deny_tampering_with_JD_Drew/UPI-37341165627954/

 

Just because it was Chass...does that mean that Colletti DIDN'T make the quotes? Because it was only one source, it's not true? That JHB's belief from "anonymous GMs" means more...because a) it's JHB or because it's against the Yankees. Try again.

 

To sum it up for those of you who don't "get it": [RSF=Red Sox Fans]

 

Millar [questionable]: Sold by Marlins to a Japanese team. Red Sox won right to sign him, saying he "changed his mind". RSF=Perfectly okay.

 

Matsuzaka [unethical]: Red Sox win bid in blind auction. Don't want to pay him. Go back to Lions to work out deal where part of the posting fee goes to his salary. Call it an "marketing arrangement with the Seibu Lions". Wonder how much of a marketing idea they had with them before winning Matsuzaka sweepstakes. RSF: Perfectly ok.

 

Drew [outright tampering]: Read the Chass article. Too long to quote. RSF: Perfectly ok.

 

Yankees get Nady and Marte for a below market [in my opinion and pretty much everyone else's opinion as well] prospect package. No significant trading history with Pirates. Cashman often trades prospects for veterans at trade deadline, so will undoubtably show more "wins" since the players will impact his team sooner. "Anonymous" GMs who didn't do their jobs complain. RSF: Evil empire cheated, has a side deal with Pirates/MLB/anyone or everyone.

 

Any moron who buys this deserves the punishment of watching 162 Pirates games a year for the next decade.

[ORS]

No, it's no stretch at all. He was pissed and he made a strong statement. Hank was pissed and he made a strong statement. Given time to think about it, Hank came to his senses and changed his mind. Since no tampering charges were filed, Colletti apparently changed his mind after given time to think about it and "look into it".

[ORS]

Drew [outright tampering]: Read the Chass article. Too long to quote. RSF: Perfectly ok.

The only relevant bit in the Chass article is Colletti's quote. I've already addressed that.

 

Here's a better suggestion. Combine the similarity of Colletti's quote to that of Hank's about ARod, and then read the Chass archives. Then tell me something.

 

What's more likely, Colletti said something in the heat of the moment that amounted to nothing, just like Hank's bluster about ARod never playing for the Yankees, or Chass has an agenda?

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

No' date=' it's no stretch at all. He was pissed and he made a strong statement. Hank was pissed and he made a strong statement. Given time to think about it, Hank came to his senses and changed his mind. Since no tampering charges were filed, Colletti apparently changed his mind after given time to think about it and "look into it".[/quote']

 

We are talking about two seperate quotes from two seperate conversations. It's possible that he was pissed during both of them, but it's not quite the same as losing your cool once like Hank did and then changing your mind. I also think that since the boston.com article confirmed the Colletti was indeed mulling over tampering charges, it gives the rest of Chass's article, and his unnamed sources more credibility.

 

I'd also like to point out that it is possible that there is some method to Hank's madness, and that he may have said what he did to keep ARod's price down, and to remove any leverage Boras had to get a bidding war started.

 

I'd argue that those quotes could mean "we HAVE to look into it...but we ain't found s***"

or even "what a f***ing waste of our time, all generated by some pompous NYT writer with a vendetta"

 

So why not deny the allegations outright then and there, and squash the story?

 

Colletti decided not to file tampering charges. That does not necessarily mean that he doesn't think any tampering took place. According to the Chass article, even the owner thought some level of tampering took place. I would argue that Colletti probably decided not to file tampering charges for the following reasons:

 

1. It could strain relationships with other GMs in the majors and make it harder to do business.

 

2. It could backfire on him and some of his own rule-bending could come to light.

 

3. A sort of 'code of honor' among GMs, where all teams do underhanded things to gain a competitive edge, and there is an informal 'don't snitch' policy.

 

We saw something very similar to this in the NFL, where coaches like Herm Edwards and Tony Dungy had underhanded things happen to them at Patriots home games, but never filed charges, and didn't even make mention until years later. For them, it may have been more about reason number 3. But nevertheless, it doesn't mean nothing happened in those games.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

What's more likely, Colletti said something in the heat of the moment that amounted to nothing, just like Hank's bluster about ARod never playing for the Yankees, or Chass has an agenda?

 

I will answer with another question:

 

What's more likely, that a MLB GM would look into tampering charges because of a NYT article written by a guy with an agenda, or because he actually believes there might be something there - even if he only believes it because he is miffed about the whole situation?

[ORS]

I will answer with another question:

 

What's more likely, that a MLB GM would look into tampering charges because of a NYT article written by a guy with an agenda, or because he actually believes there might be something there - even if he only believes it because he is miffed about the whole situation?

Is this a serious question? Colletti's quote begat the Chass article, not the other way around. Chass doesn't write that article without Colletti's quote because he's perpetrating libel if he does. Colletti said what he said because that is what he felt at the time, just like Hank.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Is this a serious question? Colletti's quote begat the Chass article' date=' not the other way around. Chass doesn't write that article without Colletti's quote because he's perpetrating libel if he does. Colletti said what he said because that is what he felt at the time, just like Hank.[/quote']

 

My fault. I thought you were part of the 'Murray Chass has a vendetta' camp. Apparently not. I still find it odd that Colletti would suggest tampering on two separate occasions, especially when he has nothing to gain from doing so, unlike Hanks comment about ARod.

[ORS]

My fault. I thought you were part of the 'Murray Chass has a vendetta' camp. Apparently not. I still find it odd that Colletti would suggest tampering on two separate occasions' date=' especially when he has nothing to gain from doing so, unlike Hanks comment about ARod.[/quote']

A vendetta is an act of vengence. To my knowledge, nothing has been done unto Murray Chass by the Boston Red Sox. He just hates them, so it would be an agenda, and I'm firmly in the camp that he has one.

 

Care to check the dates of the articles you linked there for the two quotes, sport? An entire 24 hours elapsed between the two. Care for me to pull up Hank's quotes over a 4 day span right after ARod's opt out occurred? I can assure you, there was no one utterance, and it lasted longer than a day. Just saying.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

A vendetta is an act of vengence. To my knowledge, nothing has been done unto Murray Chass by the Boston Red Sox. He just hates them, so it would be an agenda, and I'm firmly in the camp that he has one.

 

Fair enough.

 

Care to check the dates of the articles you linked there for the two quotes, sport? An entire 24 hours elapsed between the two. Care for me to pull up Hank's quotes over a 4 day span right after ARod's opt out occurred? I can assure you, there was no one utterance, and it lasted longer than a day. Just saying.

 

Oh that's right, the date of the articles must be the same as the dates of the quotes

 

The articles written were published a day apart. In this case, the quotes also happen to be a day apart, a day earlier for each.

 

As for Hank I am confident that he said many quoteworthy things over a 4 day span. I won't bother looking it up. Like I mentioned earlier, however, there is a chance that Hank said what he did to keep ARod's price down. Colletti has nothing to gain by alleging tampering on two separate occasions.

[ORS]

Now you are speculating as to motive, and doing it poorly, while attempting to shut the door on speculation as to Colletti's motives. You realize that, right?

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Now you are speculating as to motive' date=' and doing it poorly, while attempting to shut the door on speculation as to Colletti's motives. You realize that, right?[/quote']

 

Yes. I'm saying that it's possible Hank actually had motivation behind his words, so it might not be a fair comparison to Colletti, who had no apparent motive that I can see. You also have speculated that Colletti had no other motive other than being cheesed at what just happened. What's the problem?

[ORS]

Ah, the old selective imagination, is it?

 

I'm sure if you thought about it a second, you could come up with something. It's not like you'd have to rack your brain to come up with something as preposterous as the idea that Hank did that to drive the price on ARod down when he ended up paying more.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Ah, the old selective imagination, is it?

 

I'm sure if you thought about it a second, you could come up with something. It's not like you'd have to rack your brain to come up with something as preposterous as the idea that Hank did that to drive the price on ARod down when he ended up paying more.

 

Paying more than he would have if ARod had not opted out? Sure. Chances of ARod not opting out after the year he had, with Boras as his agent? 0%. Regardless of the actual outcome of the new contract, it doesn't change Hank's possible motivation at the time.

[ORS]

I'll entertain this nonsensical tangent for one more post, respond if you wish.

 

Regardless of what happened when the Yankees were posturing like they were "out of the market for ARod", that all went away the moment they entered the game. There's nothing to gain by faking like you are out of it because once they get back into it, the other teams will act accordingly. Your concept of motivation for doing this is pure fantasy.

 

I'm sure you could find something equally fantastic as motivation for Colletti, but I see you are holding the line that none exist. Seems like you are devoid of whimsical notions when it doesn't involve the NYY.

[Gom]

So..to get back to the original argument...

 

What the Sox may have done is cheat [iMO opinion, it's a definite, but heaven forbid a Sox fan even contemplate the pios Red Sox FO of anything untoward]. What Hank did was bluster and say he'd never sign Arod, and then do the opposite?

 

Where exactly is the connection?

 

Why defend someone who is clueless ORS? Just because he's a Sox fan? I rip Jacko all day. More than likely, Red Sox bent/broke the rules and got away with it. Yankees made a legit trade. End of story. Even JHB has to see that by now.

[jacksonianmarch]

So George Kontos was happy he wasnt dealt to Pitt

 

Today

 

8IP 1H 0ER 1BB 13K

[Gom]

Even more conspiracy. The Yankees were behind the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand as well. Look it up. I'm sure JHB has a chart for it.

[ORS]

Drop the [stupid s*** you put in brackets, it's always an insult that you feign as an aside - basically if it shows up on the screen, you said it, you are fooling nobody].

 

Oh, so Hank's was bluster? Why wasn't Colletti's statement? Same situation, the best player exercises and option pissing off people in the FO. In both cases, the stated course of action is discarded after cooler heads prevail. The only way to see the two as different is to apply a double standard.

 

I'm not defending JHB's point because he's a Sox fan, although it appears that is the only way you are able to see this. I see merit to his point because of the evidence and analysis he uses to support it, something you have yet to do. You are completely full of your own self importance if you think you've successfully discredited one of his claims, or that he agrees with a thing you've said on either issue. Here let me give you an example.

 

JHB will say this deal is a win for so-and-so because the dollar-per-win value gained is x.

 

You will respond with, LOL x sucks.

 

About the only thing you deserve credit for is the fact that while the content of your posts is similar to those that post like this....

 

LOLz x suks, y def mo better

 

you at least have the courtesy to type the words right.

[Gom]

Your issue is your inability to read.

 

The question is not who won the deal. It's whether there was any funny business, i.e. cheating, deal under the table etc.

 

Now...take your X and Y and come up with a better answer. You're losing it in your old age, my favorite enemy.

[ORS]

Gom, you asked why I defended some of the points he made in his post. I did so by giving an example of the level of discourse.

 

Face it, you are intellectually too lazy to hang with someone like JHB who forms his opinions on the results of his research. He looks s*** up, compares it to other s*** he looks up, and then forms an opinion on the results. The opinion he presents and his description of how he got to it is reasonable and grounded in logic.

 

You jump to conclusion without research, spout an uninformed opinion, demonstrate no discernable applicaton of logic (of any kind), insult the intelligence of the person you are in discussion with, and declare yourself the winner. It's really kind of funny in a pathetic way.

[Gom]

No matter how you dress up a pig, it's still a pig. I was sorely mistaken in thinking you had some intelligence in the matter.

 

There is enough erroneous information out there in today's "information" age. Take enough time, and I'm sure you'll find enough corroborating evidence telling you the world is flat.

 

No research is needed to combat outright stupidity. Sorry if you find it insulting, I am telling the truth. See, I come from the school of common sense. Let me give you an example:

 

A team trading prospects for veterans will invariable come out behind in three years. Why? Most of the prospects they are trading for won't be in the majors for a year or so in the first place. So the logic is flawed from the beginning.

 

As a scientist, you come up with a hypothesis, and then do tests to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is inherently illogical, why bother with the tests? I can shoot down 90% of what the both of your minds try to come up with BEFORE you even start looking with something all your research has never been able to give either of you. Common sense. When you're right, I give you credit. When you're wrong, I let you know it.

 

The Yankees are in a win now mode. Have been for 12 years. Their deadline deals that involve them giving up prospects for veterans will invariably show a net win for them over three years. It should. Think about it. Put down your charts and THINK. Try that, the both of you. Come up with a hypothesis before you go searching for data. Who do you think will win the deal for Santana, or Sabathia over the next three years? It's pretty much a given. When you start thinking, then our discussions will go to another level, one that will transcend our rivalries and come up with some interesting and enlightening discussion. My post about what would be the best options if Manny was put on waivers did not elicit a response. You call it fluff, I call it thinking. Move forward. Learn. Apply what you see, instead of regurgitate it.

 

So take your data and shove it. I'm not against using data when I don't know or want clarification. I don't need to research things to know that Manny is a better hitter right now than Jason Bay. Yankees made a good trade. Not a conspiracy. Anyone thinking so is a fool Anyone defending such a fool is a bigger one.

 

This post has accomplished one thing. I feel much dumber for involving myself in this discussion. I feel like I've lost 20 IQ points debating you and JHB.

 

Don't insult yourself or JHB by comparing yourselves to me. That's an insult I'd never post. That's just being mean.

[ORS]

Gom, you don't come close to any discipline of logic I've read about.

 

Your example is a misrepresentation of the facts presented by JHB. You want the caveat that 3 years isn't enough to judge a trade of prospects for veterans, and normally I'd agree, if.....and this is kind of important.... if the prospects look like they will eventually make the major leagues. That bus has passed for most of the guys in the previous trades. This is the kind of vital information that totally escapes your cursory and lazy examination of what's going on.

 

And it's why your responses are nothing more than gibberish after the first step in the wrong direction.

 

Seriously, dude. I'm beyond the point of even wanting to jab back an forth. Please start making sense.

[Gom]

I feel the same way. Once again, this all started by him believing that there was something going on under the table. I said it's ********. You know what? Teams giving "special consideration" on trades is ********.

 

Now...do I believe s*** goes on with free agents, and free agents to be? Of course. Have the Red Sox done it? Yup. No doubt in my mind. Have the Yankees done it? I'm sure they have. I'll point out one example. David Wells reneging on his hand-shake agreement with the Diamondbacks. Agents get cozy with GMs and vice versa.

 

However, trades are a different thing completely. That's what I've been saying all along.

[ORS]

What are trades, Gom? I mean, strip it down to what's happening, what are they?

[Gom]

You want me to define trade as it applies to baseball? Ok, a trade is where one team trades one player for another. It can be expanded to multiple players, future consideration of a player [PTBNL] or cash, or any combination thereof.

 

That's the best I can do without going to look at the baseball charter.

[ORS]

I was looking for something more fundamental.

 

A baseball trade is the exchange of assets between two businesses. When you remove titles and names and lingo, it's a business swap. When it has been demonstrated that some of these businesses can benefit financially through the success of another due to the confederation that they have formed, the league, it opens a pandora's box where conflict of interest lies, with the conflict being that the goal to make money is sometimes at odds with the goal to be successful on the field.

 

We've all lamented the lower echelon payroll teams for pocketting the money distributed to them from profit sharing. The simple truth is that for some of these owners, it is more about the bottom line than it is about fielding a legitimately competitive team.

 

In such an environment, it's not possible to simply dismiss the idea that collusion could exist and call it common sense. If fact, the exact opposite is true. Common sense should recognize the conflict of interest and the nature of some teams who are more profit oriented, and accept that collusion is and should be part of a reasonable discussion, provided the discussion has merits through analysis of the transactions that occur.

 

So, for you to say that tampering is possible and likely, yet to dismiss collusion as a possiblity, I feel you are missing the big picture.

 

That's all.